Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That said, even without the possibility of filing a lawsuit, having a gay couple walk into one of these Muslim bakeries, get denied service, and then post about their experience in regards to this online (and/or to share this with the news, if any news stations are interested in this) might help in regards to having the public pay more attention to Michigan's lack of anti-service discrimination laws/measures when it pertains to same-sex couples.
Didn't a federal judge just declare an amendment to the Michigan Constitution, a referendum approved by 60% of the voters here in Michigan back in 2004 and a very deliberate act of the people to be null and void?
Now, without so much as a whimper, you're going to lay down for open and overt discrimination by bakeries because the state law in Michigan isn't as helpful to your cause as might be the case?
QFT. All the Muslims I knew from living 23 of my first 25 years in Metro Detroit were all about the dollar bills and would sell a cake to the PM of Israel if it made them a few bucks. People from hayseed communities, who wouldn't know a Muslim if he walked up and kissed them on the street, always have a strange perspective.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the court's decision in regards to this, isn't the job/role of the courts to interpret the U.S. Constitution (regardless of whether or not you think that they interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly)?
Except in pretense, how is that materially different from a dictatorship?
Didn't a federal judge just declare an amendment to the Michigan Constitution, a referendum approved by 60% of the voters here in Michigan back in 2004 and a very deliberate act of the people to be null and void?
Now, without so much as a whimper, you're going to lay down for open and overt discrimination by bakeries because the state law in Michigan isn't as helpful to your cause as might be the case?
You are aware that the roll of the courts is to interpret the law, right? Please explain, in detail, how this judgement is "unconstitutional legislating".
Article I
Section 1.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
What is the difference between "interepeting" the Constitution in a way that changes or eliminates laws enacted by Congress and the states and writing laws?
There is no provision in the Constitution for judicial review.
Go ahead and look.
It isn't there, and the reason it isn't there is because the courts were never given this power.
The for people to decide what is or is not in harmony with our founding documents.
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
What is the difference between "interepeting" the Constitution in a way that changes or eliminates laws enacted by Congress and the states and writing laws?
There is no provision in the Constitution for judicial review.
Go ahead and look.
It isn't there, and the reason it isn't there is because the courts were never given this power.
The for people to decide what is or is not in harmony with our founding documents.
From my own post on the previous page:
As Madison himself said when contemplating the role of the federal judiciary, found in his own notes on the Constitutional Convention (unlike Jefferson, Madison was actually in the room while the document was written):
"A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void."
Hamilton (also in the room when it was written) in Federalist 78:
"The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."
Two of the major players in writing it seemed to think that judicial review was going to happen. And state laws have been reviewed by federal courts going back to Fletcher v. Peck in 1810.
The lawsuits will target Christian bakeries, caterers, reception halls, DJs and photography services.
The activists who bring the lawsuits won't go within a mile of a Muslim owned business that would refuse to provide services for a same-sex wedding because the denial of service isn't really the issue.
The real issue is the supremacy of the state over the individual, and in this, liberals and Muslims have much more in common than not (at least from the liberal's perspective).
It is Christian constitutionalists with their stubborn insistence that our rights come from God, that power belongs to the people and that the individual reins supreme over the state who have p*ssed in the statist's pool.
Michigan didn't do anything - the man who overruled Michigan state law and imposed his own personal opinion in a blatant act of legislating from the bench did.
Anyone who values liberty and constitutional government should be abhorred by this travesty of a decision.
The 14th Amendment argument is absurd.
There was no denial of equal treatment by the state law in question.
What the gay army has done is throw that "equality" line around so much that people actually have begun to think that it has merit, and they have found friendly judges to impose their warped view on the rest of the republic.
Friedman's decision is a clear usurpation of legislative power by the judiciary and is a federal intrusion into what should be a state matter.
If the state of Michigan wants to modify their marriage law, they should be able to do so.
It should not be forced upon them by an unelected man in a black robe.
Michigan didn't do anything - the man who overruled Michigan state law and imposed his own personal opinion in a blatant act of legislating from the bench did.
Anyone who values liberty and constitutional government should be abhorred by this travesty of a decision.
The 14th Amendment argument is absurd.
There was no denial of equal treatment by the state law in question.
What the gay army has done is throw that "equality" line around so much that people actually have begun to think that it has merit, and they have found friendly judges to impose their warped view on the rest of the republic.
Friedman's decision is a clear usurpation of legislative power by the judiciary and is a federal intrusion into what should be a state matter.
If the state of Michigan wants to modify their marriage law, they should be able to do so.
It should not be forced upon them by an unelected man in a black robe.
Please stop saying gay army. Was there a women's army or a black army before they got rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
